"Sheeple" <3 When you hear that word you know you're in for a ride.
I didn't claim I smashed anything into dust. I just said it's easily done. As long as you take your time.
Did you even read your own posts? One of the strange thing about conspiracy-rhetorics is that there's always an amazing mix of statements. Look at the first page of this post - there's the mass-shootings as a means to control people, the mass-shooting with a hidden warning/message in a Batman movie, drones, chinese slave labour, secret agreements ("look at some websites"), the UN being run by China, China ordering the US to take it's peoples guns, China being the main conspirator of buying up the american debt...and the list goes on.
You can look at each of these factors and take it apart.
For example, the debt to the Chinese.
For China to have such extreme control over the UN and the US, you would assume they own pretty much all of the US national debt.
But, they don't.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...w-big-who-owns
Look at the numbers.
Most of the US debt is domestic. It's owned by the US itself.
Out of 16 trillion, only 5,4 trillion is foreign debt.
Out of the 5,4 trillion foreign debt only 1,15 trillion is owned by China.
That is a lot, sure.
But Japan owns 1,12 trillion of the US debt so they're not far behind.
So...if China owns less than 10% of US debt. How can they have such absolute control of the UN/US, just on behalf of that debt?
Shouldn't the domestict debt-owners have something to say?

Or Japan?
Nooo...nooo...it's just China, for some reason, giving orders.
But, do you know what's great about the whole conspiracy theory-narrative. Now you can just forget about this whole China-debt-thing. Pretend like it was never a big deal, and then just say that it's the "NWO" or something, that can never be neither verified och falsified, since the NWO is such a vague concept that you can manage to fit in pretty much anything you want and don't sympathize with.
We can take every one of these points. Break them down, and see that in reality - the situation is much more complex.
But. It won't matter. Because conspiracy theorist are just like religious people...they're not a big friend of the whole idea of "trying to falsify your own theories"-thing. It's like an adapted "God of the gaps"-argument. Conspiracy theorists jumping from one thing to another that they find fishy, and use it as a proof of the NWO-wrongdoing. And since they are no longer sheeple, and have bought into the NWO-narrative...they will naturally see fishy things all over the place. + there's a bonus with not having to believe most of the things that contradict your view, since that information (in such a case) is being controlled by the NWO/Illuminati.
Conspiracy theorists holds the world record in two things:
1. Sheepishly believing pretty much anything that is said or written, if it coincides with the NWO/illuminati-narrative.
2. Being extremely critical, and refusing to accept information that comes from an "official" source...i.e. anything from a professional/ clinical/university study... (since they are part of the system)
3. ...unless that study happens to show something that fits with the NWO/illuminati-narrative, then that study is ok.
4. Unless the academic community finds that the forementioned study was scientifically lacking, in that case it's the NWO trying to shut people up.
This literally blows my mind every time. It's a very sheepish way to streamline information, if you ask me.
_________________________
And when it comes to the definition of "capitalism."
I would define capitalism as a society which economic system is founded on private ownership.
For me, that is fundamental in what constitutes capitalism.
The amount of regulation may differ. Some may want it strenghten, and some might want it loosened.
Some might even want it loosened to such an extent as to create a laissez-faire, neo-liberal, night-watchman state.
Indeed, you may.
But, less regulation, or more regulation - it is still capitalism, since it is based on private ownership.
Perhaps you do not agree with this definition, and consider capitalism as only existing in a truly laissez-faire society. Sure. I wouldn't agree with that, but sure. However, I wouldn't call your ignorance "staggering". I would only see it as a different perspective.